Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT

45 ITR 206Supreme Court of India1962#487 most cited

What is Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT authority for?

The Income Tax Officer (ITO) can gather material for assessment through private enquiries but must disclose such material to the assessee and provide an opportunity to explain it to uphold the principles of natural justice. The ITO is not bound by strict rules of evidence and can use material collected privately, provided disclosure and explanation are afforded.

193

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT · 45 ITR 206 · SC · private enquiry · disclosure of material · opportunity to explain · natural justice · cross-examination

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 132

Issues it is cited on

buyback of sharesretention moneyonus of proofsection 269tsection 158bbsection 269sthird party informationsection 271eicdsdumb documentssection 132(4a)section 292c

Judgments citing Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT

ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Jostars Orogotech P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands partly allowed and cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1288/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Shaktijit Dey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…ell-settled law that strict rules of evidence do not apply to IT. Act and the real test with regard to genuineness of the transaction is 'Preponderance of Probabilities' and not 'Beyond reasonable doubt'. Reliance is placed on C. Vasantlal & Co. Vs. C1T(1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC), Chaturbhuj Panauj AIR 1969 (SC) and Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). One has to consider the totality of facts, surrounding circumstances and human probability for arriving at a conclusion as held in CIT Vs. Durga Prasad 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Daya Vs CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801(SC). 6) The purchases from Hawala operator falls wi…

Bhadresh Trading Company, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed in part

ITA 2083/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am

Section 101Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…at strict rules of evidence do not apply to lncome Tax proceedings and the real test with regard to genuineness of the transaction is "Preponderance of "probabilities" and not "Beyond reasonable doubt". Reliance was placed on C. Vasantlal & Co. vs. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC), Chaturbhuj Panauj AIR 1969 (SC) and SumatiDayal Vs. CIT (1905) 2014 ITR 801 (SC). One has to consider the totality of facts, surrounding circumstances and human probability for arriving at a conclusion as held in CIT Vs. Durga Prasad 82 ITR 540 (SC) and SumatiDayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC). (vii) that the purchase from hawala operators fall…

M/S. Blossom Advertisers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 186/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Pramod Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…l Jain (2008) 299 ITR 383 (Del) 2. United Electrical Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Ors (2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del) 3. Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt Ltd. vs. ITO 195 Taxmann 262 (Del) 4. Capricon Shopping Complex vs. ITO 218 ITR 721 (Ker) 5. C. Vasanthlal & Co. vs. CIT 45 ITR 206 (SC) 6. CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. 325 ITR 285 (Del) e. Taking all the above submissions together the issue of notice u/s 148 is void and without jurisdiction, hence the order u/s 147 should be quashed impromptu. 5. Addition of Rs. 2125000/- u/s 69A a. The appellant received a communication from the ld. A.O. that he had received certain i…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Minda Investment Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as the

ITA 4391/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 68

…st be supplied the contents of /all such evidence, both oral and documentary, so that he can prepare to meet the 8 case against him. This necessarily also postulates that he should cross-examine the witness hostile to him. In C. Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206 (SC), the Supreme Court held that it was open to an Income-tax Officer to collect materials to facilitate assessment even by private enquiry. But if he desires to use the materials so collected, the assessee must be informed of the materials and must be given an adequate opportunity of explaining it. Similar view was expressed in Dhakeswari Cotton…

Bhanuben Danji Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 23(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1735/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1735/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Bhanuben Danji Shah Asst. Cit-23(2), बनाम/ E/31, Konark Indraprasth, Mumbai 11Th Floor, Jain Mandir Road, Vs. Mulund (W), Mumbai – 400 080 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Amrps 1215 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prakash L. Pathade सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.02.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 26.12.2011, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2004-05 Vide Order Dated 21.12.2006. 2. None Appeared For & On Behalf Of The Assessee-Appellant When The Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing, Nor Any Adjournment Application Stands Received. This, Despite The Hearing Having Been Adjourned For Today Instant At The Request Of The Assessee’S Counsel, Shri Mukul J. Vora (Vide His Letter Dated 22.7.2015/Copy On Record). It Was 2 Bhanuben Danji Shah Vs. Asst. Cit Noted That On Earlier Occasions As Well, The Appellant Has Sought For & Been Granted Adjournment Of Hearing. The Appeal, Filed In 2012, Is Pending Since Long. It Was Under The Circumstances Only Considered It Proper That The Matter To Be Proceeded With & The Appeal Decided After Hearing The Party Before Us & Considering The Material On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 68

…he sense the phrase is ordinarily used, so that the assessing authority is not fettered or bound by the technical rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act (CIT vs. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 449 (SC); C. Vasantlal & Co. vs. CIT [1962] 45 ITR 206 (SC); and Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC)). The Revenue is not required to prove its case with mathematical precision in-as-much as absolute certainty in the matter of human affairs cannot be predicated, and the law accepts probability as a working substitute for the purpose of assessment under the Act. The same represe…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Isf Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2347/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

…given reasonable opportunity to rebut them, then the same cannot be used against the asseesee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial pronouncement given by Honb’le Apex Court and jurisdiction High Court:- C. Vsantlal & Co. V. CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206(SC) Meenglas Tea Estate V. Workmen. 1963-(050)-AIR- 1719 -SC Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT 26lTR 775.782-3SC Menka Gandhi Vs UOI (AIR1978 SC 597) J.T. (India) Exports and another Vs UOI and another262 ITR269(Del FB) Tulari Ram Pate 45- ITR - 206 (SC) C.B. Gautam (Supra)1993-199-ITR-530(Sc) CIT vs Rajesh Kumar 2008-306-ITR-27(Del) CIT vs…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sanjiv Nanda, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1911/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal
Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI `G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.1850/Del/2013 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Sanjeev Nanda, Vs The D.C.I.T, 4, Prithvi Raj Road, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. Room No.332, ARA Centre, (PAN: ACKPN7555K) Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. I.T.A.No.1911/Del/2013 Assessment Year : 2007-08 DCIT, Vs Shri Sanjeev Nanda, Central Circle-13, 4, Prithvi Raj Road, Room No.332, ARA Centre, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ajay Wadhwa Adv.…

Mr. Sanjeev Nanda, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1850/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal
Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI `G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No.1850/Del/2013 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Sanjeev Nanda, Vs The D.C.I.T, 4, Prithvi Raj Road, Central Circle-13, New Delhi. Room No.332, ARA Centre, (PAN: ACKPN7555K) Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. I.T.A.No.1911/Del/2013 Assessment Year : 2007-08 DCIT, Vs Shri Sanjeev Nanda, Central Circle-13, 4, Prithvi Raj Road, Room No.332, ARA Centre, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ajay Wadhwa Adv.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Late Dr. M.V. Rao Through Wife & Legal Heir Smt. Swaranalatha, New Delhi

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 2574/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Jayant Mishra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…collect material to facilitate assessment even by private enquiry. But if the desires to use the material so collected, the assessee must be informed of the material and must be given an adequate opportunity of explaining it {C. Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT [1962] 45 ITR 206 (SC)}. As regards the issue raised by the appellant that the documents do not belong to him and cannot be held against him, as no legal presumption can be made u/s 132(4A)/292C, it is noted that the documents were seized from the possession of the appellant by the Income -tax Department or the Delhi Police, which fact has not been disputed. It is…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Late Dr. M.V. Rao Through Wife & Legal Heir Smt. Swaranalatha, New Delhi

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 2573/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Jayant Mishra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…collect material to facilitate assessment even by private enquiry. But if the desires to use the material so collected, the assessee must be informed of the material and must be given an adequate opportunity of explaining it {C. Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT [1962] 45 ITR 206 (SC)}. As regards the issue raised by the appellant that the documents do not belong to him and cannot be held against him, as no legal presumption can be made u/s 132(4A)/292C, it is noted that the documents were seized from the possession of the appellant by the Income -tax Department or the Delhi Police, which fact has not been disputed. It is…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Late Dr. M.V. Rao, New Delhi

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 1914/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Jayant Mishra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…collect material to facilitate assessment even by private enquiry. But if the desires to use the material so collected, the assessee must be informed of the material and must be given an adequate opportunity of explaining it {C. Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT [1962] 45 ITR 206 (SC)}. As regards the issue raised by the appellant that the documents do not belong to him and cannot be held against him, as no legal presumption can be made u/s 132(4A)/292C, it is noted that the documents were seized from the possession of the appellant by the Income -tax Department or the Delhi Police, which fact has not been disputed. It is…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Late Dr. M.V. Rao, New Delhi

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 1912/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Jayant Mishra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…collect material to facilitate assessment even by private enquiry. But if the desires to use the material so collected, the assessee must be informed of the material and must be given an adequate opportunity of explaining it {C. Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT [1962] 45 ITR 206 (SC)}. As regards the issue raised by the appellant that the documents do not belong to him and cannot be held against him, as no legal presumption can be made u/s 132(4A)/292C, it is noted that the documents were seized from the possession of the appellant by the Income -tax Department or the Delhi Police, which fact has not been disputed. It is…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Late Dr. M.V. Rao, New Delhi

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 1905/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Jayant Mishra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…collect material to facilitate assessment even by private enquiry. But if the desires to use the material so collected, the assessee must be informed of the material and must be given an adequate opportunity of explaining it {C. Vasantlal & Co. v. CIT [1962] 45 ITR 206 (SC)}. As regards the issue raised by the appellant that the documents do not belong to him and cannot be held against him, as no legal presumption can be made u/s 132(4A)/292C, it is noted that the documents were seized from the possession of the appellant by the Income -tax Department or the Delhi Police, which fact has not been disputed. It is…